154 réponses à ce sujet

[FunkySwerve]

Queensilverwing wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...

Suffice it to say, if you study law (or even just politics or history), you learn that any system set up with flaws like yours will eventually have those flaws exploited

.

Firstly, let me say in no uncertain terms, that I am not here to attack you in any way Funky. I, like other posters, merely wish to express/discuss the subject at hand.

As to flawed systems, I don't personally think that there is a system out there, be it law, economics, Vault voting, Reviewer's Guild scoring or AME regulations, that isn't flawed. If it can be made, it can be broken, tampered with etc...should a person wish to try and do so. That does not however mean, that that person won't be caught in the act, just that all things are possible.

You can only try and make something as fair and hopefully, impartial as possible, but no one person, or organization can guarantee 100% that it is full proof.

That's all completely true. The problem I have is that there are easy ways to make your system more fair and impartial, which I've already mentioned. The fact that flaws exist is not reason to fail to eliminate them where feasible.

I'm not a builder, CC creator. I'm a (sometime) reviewer, module player and a member of the AME since it began. let's say I've privately bug tested a module before it's been released to the Vault for public BETA testing. Now a year later, that module has been nominated in say, the RP category of the awards. However, before that certain module was nominated I made a nomination of my own in that category for a different module. I am now no longer allowed to participate in the whole RP category because I have had to vote a COI (conflict of interest) on the module that I privately bug tested.

How then am I able to exercise self-interest in getting my own nomination through to the finals? The only communication I have with my fellow AME members is via the AME forums. If I had wanted to, I could have kept quiet about bug testing privately and continued my participation in that whole category...if I had wanted to undermine the whole spirit of the AME that is.

*You* aren't, assuming the system works as you describe. The problem is that the others have incentives - that is to say, it's in their rational self-interest - to want to keep you happy, both as acquaintances/friends, and to retain you in the organization. They could easily act on those incentives, even without being consciously aware of them - it's a conflict of interest. Lawyers, despite all the jokes, have extensive rules dealing with such conflicts, in order to set up firewalls against them.

But I don't, and other members do not...because it is not in my or anyone else's interest to spend countless hours downloading, playing and testing content nominated by fellow AME members. It is not what the AME is about. We want to award a GDA to an author, module, tileset or other CC work because we as a group have expressed our admiration and respect for that work. Moreover, we believe, that above the other finalists, that work was the best of the three finalists that made it through.

Actually, if it's an activity you enjoy, for whatever reason, it absolutely is in your rational self-interest to do spend those countless hours. 'Rational self-interest' is a very broad standard, encompassing all sorts of motivation, and as a utilitarian standard, your enjoyment, your self-image as a community member, and much more, are all factored in. It's also a standard that makes several unrealistic assumptions, like perfect information - you should read up on it on Wikipedia if you're interested, as delving deeper into it would be straying pretty far afield.

I don't participate in all the GDA categories, ergo, I don't vote on all of them either. I trust and respect my fellow AME members, it is also a good bet that anyone who wanted to cheat wouldn't last the course because the whole AME system is a long and time consuming commitment...whatever categories you have committed to. Most people who want to ruin a system or use it to their own advantage, do not have the patience to spend months on and off seeing that self-interest through. It's not really like clicking a button to make a one time vote.

In most cases, the person acting out of an inappropriate motive wouldn't be trying to 'ruin' the system, and wouldn't think of themselves as doing anything nefarious - almost no one actually think's *they're* the bad guy. They might, for example, simply act out of loyalty - itself fairly admirable, but problematic where bias is a concern.

As for being 'hopelessly naive', guess I am, because if I were to work under your assumption that most of us work under the premise of 'rational self-interest' I would have closed the doors of the Reviewers Guild a long time ago. Why don't I? Because there are 178 people who read our last
mini review, 38 of them this month alone (in contrast to the 1000 reads per week we got a few years back) Whether it's a mini review or full one, our team spend hours playing, writing and then re-writing a review to follow our no doubt flawed, but I hope fair, guidelines. A reviewer will go through peer review that can be brutal, painful, funny and fun...and all so 178 people can read that review, never make a comment (good or bad) and perhaps glean some idea if that module is the kind of module they'd like to play.

I'm not clear on why you think your rational self-interest would lead you to close the guild, but I suspect it's because you're reading the term too narrowly, construing it as akin to greed, or purely monetary. See my remarks above.

The AME are no less dedicated than the Reviewers, and in many ways, more so because they work for months on end on nominations, testing and finals. In the end, I don't believe there has ever been a GDA awrded to an inferior module, author, tileset or other CC. Does anybody else think there has? If not, then how fawed is our system really?

That's sort of what I was getting at when I said this probably wasn't an earth shattering flaw, earlier. I'm focused on the system, not the results to date. I have no idea how fair or not the results have been thus far - I haven't really paid attention, since the information isn't of much relevance to my own NWN activities. I only know that there's a systemic flaw likely to create problems at some point. I think there would be serious questions about the result, if one of your members were to win - has any member won, in the past?

Did I do good or what? *grins and winks at Flunky*

Yes, thanks for not flipping out or getting all knee-jerk defensive, and for trying to understand the problem I'm getting at. I understand the problem AME faces when it comes to wanting to allow their members to be recognized like everyone else while wanting to apply a more selective set of criteria than public voting allows, and I sympathize, but the method by which you eliminated some undesirable voting inputs left the door open for others. Not being one who likes to criticize without offering a solution, I suggested a modified public voting system, which would have the added benefit of drawing more community participation. If, after you fully understand the problem I'm describing, that simply isn't palatable, then the alternatives aren't great. Increasing member count to dilute conflicts of interest is probably the best bet - just don't ask me how.

Funky

Modifié par FunkySwerve, 27 août 2011 - 04:52 .

[Zarathustra217]

While economics is great for describing the flow of commodities, labour and holdings, it isn't always the best solution for assessing the subjective, the aesthetics and the arts. While I can relate to many of your concerns Funky, I don't feel it's accurate to compare it to a free market situation.

Rather, I think it's relevant to describe it in more psychological and sociological terms.

I truly believe it when you, the AME team, say that you genuinely aspire to be impartial and not favour friends and members of the group. The difficulty is - and this is what I consider the essence of the concern Funky voice - that perception, particularly in matters as these, is a very subjective thing.

Take this as an example:

"Sanctum of the Archmage" is not "only" an ambitious story within a rich setting that's heavy on character interaction and believable romance - another of its prominent features is the ongoing support and high level of polish. Although further installments of the series are still in the works, Andarian constantly upgraded and also completely overhauled the available chapters over the years with the inclusion of some of the community's best custom content available.

I haven't tried out the module, so I won't pretend to be in any place to question it - but merely reading this description makes it obvious how much of this is entirely subjective. How do you objectively assess if the romance is "believable"? And that it is more believable than other?

The answer is of course that you can't, and that you have to trust your intuition. This is not inherently a bad thing - a contest on purely objective terms wouldn't serve anyone - but it poses a challenge to those on the committee aspiring for impartiality. Not just to the extend that they have to be careful not letting their familiarity with the author colour the way they judge a work, to be more kind and flattering in the wording, but even down to the level of what they perceive when judging. If you often associate with a particular author, chances are you will have similar attention to certain things and have similar preferences in certain regards. You end up sharing the same notion of what believable romance is, and the same attention to what criteria it rely on.

I think this is from what the concern has it's legitimate origin. That there's a potential of a close knit group that mainly have eye for each other's things.

[FunkySwerve]

Arkalezth wrote...
This doesn't seem very on-topic to me. You can relate one thing to another infinitely, but the market economy in Europe doesn't have much to do with the AME.

The relation is far from infinite - market reasoning is central to the issue I'm discussing. I agree the response wandered somewhat far afeild, but responses to trolls, like that gentleman, often do, of necessity - when someone makes vague, unfounded accusations about spouting ideology, it's a little difficult to respond without straying somewhat afield. I suggest you take him to task, not me, and focus on my other remarks, which are still very much on topic.

The question was:

Arkalezth wrote...

I have a question for those who have a
bad perception of it from outside: take a look at the past awards
(finalists, winners...). Do you think any of them don't deserve it? Of
course, you may have a personal different favorite, but I don't think
you'll find a bad module or author among them.

Actually, as it happens, I just answered that in my last reply. I'm taking issue with the system, not the results to date. The system is flawed and likely to produce skewed outcomes. Whether it has done so already, I have no idea. And yes, that's certainly relevant to the seriousness of the flaw, as I note in my above response to marie.

Funky

Modifié par FunkySwerve, 27 août 2011 - 05:02 .

[FunkySwerve]

Zarathustra217 wrote...

While economics is great for describing the flow of commodities, labour and holdings, it isn't always the best solution for assessing the subjective, the aesthetics and the arts. While I can relate to many of your concerns Funky, I don't feel it's accurate to compare it to a free market situation.

Actually, economics (this is application of economic reasoning, NOT a comparison to a 'free market situation' - econ != free market)  does assess those things, by its very nature. While it's difficult, as you note, to answer a question like, 'what is the market value of a beautiful view?' directly, the market still has an answer. This is why houses in the foothills, or along beaches, for example, tend to be much pricier than their less-scenically situated counterparts. Likewise, subjective preference is encompassed in 'rational self-interest', though as you note it's often complicated, and has been the source of much scholarly dissent. One of the easier cases, for example, is that of the addict - should his getting a fix constitute his having satisfied his rational self-interest? Only a few hedonists think that it should, but you can see all sorts of less black-and-white avenues leading that direction.

Economics, by its nature, is a formulaic way of talking about all human concerns - sort of akin to psychohistory, if you're a fan of Asmiov - just much less advanced.

Rather, I think it's relevant to describe it in more psychological and sociological terms.
...
I think this is from what the concern has it's legitimate origin. That there's a potential of a close knit group that mainly have eye for each other's things.

Bingo. This is essentially what I'm gestting at, though you took a different road to get there. It's not so much that they're actively wanting to skew outcomes, just that, in some cases, they are likely to.

Funky

Modifié par FunkySwerve, 27 août 2011 - 05:16 .

[Elhanan]

All art is subjective, however. While the vast majority seem to love Casablanca, The Godfather series, Raging Bull, etc, my own thoughts lean away from them all. This does not equate them to being less worthy of the praise they have been given; just not getting any from me. Same goes for art that I enjoy; may not always be what garnishes attention. So be it.

Simply because a mod wins awards does not mean I will enjoy it or not; same goes for most recommendations. But I am more likely to try these mods as a rule because of the praise and reviews given by their peers. And that is what all of this seems to be about; awarding praise to what this body deems worthy. It is not an objective bunch of accountants placing the ballots in mason jars for the final talley.

Currently, I could care less of the film Academy as they have polluted their voting pool with other outside factors. And I have actually seen very few of the acclaimed films of the past 10+ yrs. But for now, the AME has provided a decent base of recommendations from which to utilize, and I commend them for striving towards excellence.

[Queensilverwing]

Gosh this is deep and I'm not trying to be facetious.

I'm taking issue with the system, not the results to date. The system is flawed and likely to produce skewed outcomes. Whether it has done so already, I have no idea. And yes, that's certainly relevant to the seriousness of the flaw, as I note in my above response to marie.

I like things simple, including my words. I simply don't understand how a system can be deemed flawed without it ever having been tested? If in 5 years of this system being in place, not one person (as yet) can come up with a single GDA winner which was not the crème de la crème of that years finalists, then how can you insist that the system is flawed, based solely on logical (perhaps) data and not actually the results of that system being in use?

All our opinions are subjective I agree. The write-up on the 'Sanctum of the Archmage' finalist was written by the very person who originally nominated Andarian for Veteran Author. Should he/she not have tried to express their reasons for such a nomination? We all, when making a nomination do our very best to express to the other members why we are making such a nomination. I certainly do not think I'm so important or liked that any single member of the AME are going to vote favourably on my nomination simply on my say so. Tehy'll go off and evaluate that nomination on their own, applying their own subjective views and the guidelines of what the AME are looking for in any single category to come to a decision.

I'll be frank, I personally do not like the idea of any AME member being nominated for their work. Not however because they are not deserving, but because it raises eyebrows in some areas of the community. On the other hand is it fair, truly fair and honest of me, to deny an author or CC'er the right to have the chance at being awarded a GDA ?

The answer is no, it is not fair or right of me to penalize a person for wanting to give back to the community in their capacity as an AME member, at the cost of denying them the chance (if it comes up) at such an award. I'm wrong for ever thinking it, or that it could or indeed should work. That would have been the perfect system perhaps, but it would have been a sterile and ultimately immoral one.

But that is me. I vote on the MoTY, subjectively. I write reviews subjectively but guided by rules. I nominate and vote subjectively on the AME, and I'm OK with that, because I know that what I'm subjectively considering is content, not people or friends.

I'm really pleased to hear while there might be worries about the AME, overall, most feel we are trying to do something good within our community. I know that it means a lot to me and I'm sure other AME members. Y'all really should come and join us, we don't bite...much

As for rational self-interest, pffft I'm not going there. Even the articles on the net can't agree on what it means....guess it's all subjective eh!

Modifié par Queensilverwing, 27 août 2011 - 07:27 .

[jmlzemaggo]

Queensilverwing wrote...
... I have had to vote a COI (conflict of interest) on the module that I privately bug tested. 

That is something I deeply don't understand. A subject which has been, sometimes even strongly, discussed in the AME forums. 
The way I see it, you shouldn't have to choose between being an NWN player and an AME member. Why are you an AME member, or a reviewer to the Guild in the first place: because you're a dedicated and concerned player. That’s the reason why you can pretend being a relevant, useful and valuable AME member. 
Now, if I follow your idea, does that mean you shouldn't help NWN builders? Littering your great knowledge of the game, just for being AME or a reviewer? Do you think NWN, and AME,'s got enough members to allow themselves such a luxury today? 
That would be a waste of your talent. On both sides, creation and awards.  
You didn't rewrite the story? You just helped making it playable? Well, nothing to say but our greatest thanks!  
Even more, I suppose you offered playtesting that particular module because you liked it, didn’t you? 
'meaning seeing it already... as a potential AME nomination perhaps? Legit.  
It's kind of contradictory. 
When I was AME myself, I tried to submit only one rule: no rules. And miserably failed...
No rules at all. But trust and respect, mixed with the most awake awareness. 


I'm deeply respectful with people offering some of their free time, and strong knowledge of that very game, to help its community. Both builders and judges. 
I trust, and trusted, every single AME member, and that was more than enough for me. 
Even to the point I believe the author of an AME nominated module itself should be allowed to vote for his own module for the GDA. Because he is a player. Before anything else. 
The "Double peine", in France, is now a prohibited sentence. One can’t be condamned twice, in two different ways, for the same single crime. 
So, for being an helpful, and very needed... just ask the builders how much they need playtesting... tester, you're holding, retaining, wasting your vote, or nomination even?
To that very module you believe being among the best ones out there?  
Now, what about a builder, when 'not voting' means voting against his own module, when it reaches the finals? 
I find it unfair. Worse: wrong. 
A pity and a waste to the whole community. 


You seem to like exemple? Here is the worse possible one: the AME chairman today, Andarian, is a builder himself. 
Unfortunatelly for him, among the best. 
Problem! His serie, « Sanctum of the Archmage », happens to be eligible this year. 


What should we do with this ‘situation’? Because this is the one we all have been talking about all the way here, lets be honnest. 
Now, I wanna tell you something: « Sanctum of the Archmage » is one of the most important modules ever written for NWN. 
Now, because of the many years he’s been already spending on it, NWN knowledge and talent combined, Andarian is probably the best chairman the AME could get today. 
Shall he be punished for being helpful. For free? 


So?
Just listen to my three personal answers to that situation:
This is a game. 
This is a game. 
This is a game. 
Can’t we just have fun? 
What is the point of gaming if it’s not being free... for a couple of hours. 
This is an entire new world. A new frontier to explore and enjoy. 
Let’s just do so, as long as it’s permitted. 
Even if it raises some eyebrows...
I do that with my kids sometimes:
They just laugh... 

Just for the records:
I found very healthy, and even smart, some NWN players brought that subject up. 
That shows they're concerned and caring. And how much that community is wild awake.
And vigilant. 
Alive. 

Modifié par jmlzemaggo, 27 août 2011 - 08:41 .

[WhiZard]

jmlzemaggo wrote...
The "Double peine", in France, is now a prohibited sentence. One can’t be condamned twice, in two different ways, for the same single crime. 

*Bolding added* - Yep once you are in hell you are in hell.

On a more serious note the submitter does already get a chance to vote for his own module, its just on the vault voting.  Now if you added the vault voting in (maybe on a fractional vote scale from -1 to 1 vote or something like that) that might be enough substance to say that the public's opinion was looked at and used.  What Funky seems to be objecting to is that public reactions seem to be completely ignored even though for well done modules, those putting in their vote are often serious evaluators as well.

Modifié par WhiZard, 27 août 2011 - 08:44 .

[Queensilverwing]

jmlzemaggo wrote...

Queensilverwing wrote...
... I have had to vote a COI (conflict of interest) on the module that I privately bug tested.

That is something I deeply don't understand. A subject which has been, sometimes even strongly, discussed in the AME forums.
The way I see it, you shouldn't have to choose between being an NWN player and an AME member.>>>>

<<<<<
Now, if I follow your idea, does that mean you shouldn't help NWN builders? Littering your great knowledge of the game, just for being AME or a reviewer? Do you think NWN, and AME,'s got enough members to allow themselves such a luxury today?
That would be a waste of your talent. On both sides, creation and awards.
You didn't rewrite the story? You just helped making it playable? Well, nothing to say but our greatest thanks!
Even more, I suppose you offered playtesting that particular module because you liked it, didn’t you?
'meaning seeing it already... as a potential AME nomination perhaps? Legit.
It's kind of contradictory. >>>>>

Ahh jml my friend, but you see, I am not having to chose between one or the other when voting CoI. Just because I play test (privately remember!) a module, and maybe I even enjoyed it, does not mean that it would be a module I would nominate. If it is that good, I'm pretty sure it will be nominated, if it is not even considered, there is likely a very good reason why - it didn't make the cut.

I personally do not help play test often. I'm no longer a part of any group which could cause me a CoI, and so I'm as free to pick and choose what or who I'd like to nominate. As for self-voting or nominating *shakes wings and shivers* Well, that would pretty much put paid to the idea that your peers have awarded you a GDA wouldn't it?

*grins*

Even in a game that gives us great pleasure, there must be some limits, a line drawn. I'd love to slap an award on all the wonderful content out there...but then, to do so would somehow lesson its meaning and specialness (uhm, not sure if that IS a word but hey, I can make it up cos I'm a dragon right?)

The Vault gives us HoF, MoTY which is a huge accolade and the AME present a special award for a module, CC or author in a very specific category. Two out of those three are the voice of the NWN masses, and one is a small group of builders, CC'ers and players who offer an alternative view and award.

*Munches on a cream scone and considers how wonderful the NWN community is. *

Stimulating is not a big enough word for what you all are!

Modifié par Queensilverwing, 27 août 2011 - 09:27 .

[FunkySwerve]

Queensilverwing wrote...

I'm taking issue with the system, not the results to date. The system is flawed and likely to produce skewed outcomes. Whether it has done so already, I have no idea. And yes, that's certainly relevant to the seriousness of the flaw, as I note in my above response to marie.

I like things simple, including my words. I simply don't understand how a system can be deemed flawed without it ever having been tested?

Very easily. We are not condemned to repeat past mistakes. Do you need to smoke cigarettes to know they're addictive? Obviously not. Similarly, theory draws on past experience to draw hypotheses which are tested, confirming or disconfirming them. This is basic scientific process used in just about every field, including social science. Examples are legion, but to keep it simple, let's go to nwscript. Here's a script to set a local object on a creature:

void main() {
    object oPC;
    SetLocalInt(oPC, "Variable", 1);
}

I don't need to compile and run this script to tell you that it's flawed - I can instead draw on my experience to realize that I haven't defined oPC. I haven't tested this very simple variable-setting system, but experience tells me it's flawed. Same as your voting system. Simple enough for you? 

The study of law is, at it's essence, the study of systems of rules - what works, and what doesn't, and why. There is a crystal clear conflict-of-interest problem here, stemming from your considering nominations within your own ranks. And frankly, the simple refusal of many of your members to see or admit it, despite claims that they deliberated at length on the issue, and therefore must have realized the complication, doesn't speak particularly well for their judgment or impartiality.

Funky

Modifié par FunkySwerve, 27 août 2011 - 09:35 .

[Queensilverwing]

Yip simple...and appears logical. Then again, I have a brother-in-law who talks in such a way as to make the listener believe he has a great command and grasp on any given subject, and he puts forth his arguments with such apparent logic, that it isn't until later that I sit there and think/realise that he just shovelled me a pile of horse manure and I swallowed it!

Not that I'm saying you're full of *hit, not at all! I just have a natural distrust of people who can discuss emotive subjects with such apparent emotionless. Then again, I'd make a baaaaad law maker, so a little distance is to be admired on occasion.

That said, I cannot deny your reasoning on the subject of member nominations. But that is where we veer apart. We have had some of the most amazing module authors and CC creators in our group, if we discount their undoubtedly high calibre of work, what are we really saying to the community?

Sorry folks, you got the next best thing on XY & Z category because the really excellent works were by an author who is an AME member?

It IS a damnable problem, I admit it. However, we have I think managed to avoid the pitfalls you are worried about for the last 5 years...I honestly believe that. I don't know what the future holds, but I do know that should I ever have reason to question something like that in an award year, I like all the other members would pull up sticks and leave the awards. I don't want a friend to win, I want the best to win, even if that means I have to vote against a friends work or nomination.

When I think about it, it really is that simple. And gods you know how I like simple! *chuckles*

[Elhanan]

And again, art is subjective; not the comparison of flawed scripts, warning labels, or even perfectly drawn chisel of brush strokes in the piece. So is the work of the art critic. Opinions all.

If the artist (or critic) were to submit their own piece and vote on it for an award, objections might be valid. But to insist that all nominees were required to be non-members would offer in it's own issues. Besides the problem of fairness, removing their works diminishes the remaining pool of nominations, as well as the pool of critics willing to serve.

While the AME may have members that garnish awards, so does the film Academy. I see no problems, and seem to note several that are willing police their own to insure a lack of bias.

[AndarianTD]

FunkySwerve wrote...

I only know that there's a systemic flaw likely to create problems at some point. I think there would be serious questions about the result, if one of your members were to win - has any member won, in the past?

I answered this in my very first response to you on the thread, Funky:

AndarianTD wrote...

The AME has nominated and awarded individuals who have served on the panel for years, ever since Ragnarok_MR4 won Best Custom Content for his ACP animations back during our very first cycle.

It doesn't happen that frequently, but it has happened a few times.

Since I'm sure you'll want to try to use me as the "obvious counter-example," though, let me get that out of the way for you. Sanctum 2 won the Best Roleplaying GDA for 2007. I will also point out, however, that it ALSO won the Bronze MOTY that year (and that it was common knowledge at the time that it would have won the Silver if the Layonara Project Team hadn't stuffed the ballots for their candidate); that it has a 9.8 rating on the Vault; and that it's consistently been in the "Top 50" front page list there for most of the time since it was released. (And BTW, the AME nominated the module that shafted it for the Silver MOTY anyway. The panel was that fair.)

Sanctum 1, on the other hand, which is currently # 35 on the Vault with a 9.82 rating, was never nominated by the AME. I was nominated for it as Debut Author of 2006, but lost -- to Fester Pot, for Almraiven, one of the most brilliant NWN authors and modules in the community's history, and who even *I* think deserved the award over me.

So do tell us, please, what you make of all this evidence. Does it show AME's voting system failing to work? Or does it show, as I think it does, precisely the opposite: a system that allows a deserving author member to be nominated, and to win when he should, and not when he shouldn't?

As I wrote before, one of the problems with your so-called "theory" here is that it cuts both ways -- and that you're unwilling to face and address the fact that it does, or the implications of that fact. Let's say that Ragnarok_mr4 -- who won Best CC of 2006 for his ACP Animations, and which I think richly deserved it -- hadn't been eligible for the award. Then who would have been nominated and won instead? Someone that would have received it, unearned and on the rebound -- for no other reason than that the actually deserving author that should have received it instead was a member of the Academy. You're quick to allege that the AME's voting rules "might" lead to a non-objective or non-optimal result if members are eligible for nomination, but strangely silent on the at least equally likely scenario of this happening on the reverse case. And you completely ignore the fact that refusing to allow members to be nominated would scare away the builder volunteers that the Academy would need to function effectively in the first place.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 27 août 2011 - 10:10 .

[Bannor Bloodfist]

Folks, stop feeding the troll please.

He has proven that he doesn't really care what anyone else's answer may be.

He has proven that he can't answer direct challenges to his supposed conflict of interest charges, simply because there are none.

He has been asked to join the system, and directly refused to do so.
He has been asked to prove that the system is broken, he can't.
His opinions on human nature mean absolutely nothing as they are just his opinions.
His quasi claims to knowing law and economics have no bearing on the AME whatsoever.
He has been asked to simply ignore a system he thinks is flawed, but he can't seem to do that.
He has made promises directly in this thread to no longer post about it, Yet he has, multiple times.

If that is not troll behavior by a conspiracy theorist (which he hates being called on the carpet for, likely due to his guilt by association), I have no idea what else you would call it.

He raised an issue, which has been answered by how that issue is handled within the AME by precluding any member from even being counted in any votes on that particular category.. NO system is perfect. Adding public votes won't change anything. Besides which, the two public voting systems available are already there so no reason to add a 3rd.

No one expects everyone to agree on everything. No one forces ANYONE to take a Golden Dragon award. In fact, folks are allowed to remove their works from consideration if they so choose. No one forces anyone to even read the announcements etc. If anyone hates the IDEA of the AME and the GDA award soo much, just walk away from it. Stop attempting to knock it down on some personal belief that you personally can not be honest enough to give a valid vote on something, especially when you decide to create a new award, and give it to yourself, just to prove how dishonest you can be?
It truly is sad that someone has to take personal likes/dislikes to such extremes.

Geeze, if that is not trolling behavior, I certainly do not understand what trolling really is.

Funky has some good ideas, especially for helping protect PW servers etc. But his "opinions" on human nature have no bearing here at all. Especially when he can find no proof of said negative behavior in regards to the AME at all. The reason he can't is simply because the AME folks have taken their toils to heart, and are honest, hardworking folks whom only wish to HELP the community to find truly good/great releases that might otherwise not have gained the attention they deserve.

Does the "opinion" of the AME matter to anyone? Many folks find it helps them to find the jewels hidden among the dross on the vault. Saves them time trying out everything that gets released etc. So that they can spend whatever free time they devote to NWN by playing with something truly worth the time. If you DON"T like how the AME does it's job, simply ignore the award(s) and go your own way. The AME won't mind, neither will the rest of us. But knocking the AME on the mistaken belief that they are flawed, is ludicrous. No proof can be offered that they have mistakenly voted something in that didn't deserve the vote. Could it happen? Possibly, but not with the current membership and how they do things, but even if it did happen, sometime far in the future, by some new membership that didn't care to be honest and trustworthy, it still would not break anyone's enjoyment of the game of NWN. It wouldn't end the world, it wouldn't even cost you anything out of your bank account. So, what's the big deal?

Modifié par Bannor Bloodfist, 27 août 2011 - 10:32 .

[FunkySwerve]

AndarianTD wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...

I only know that there's a systemic flaw likely to create problems at some point. I think there would be serious questions about the result, if one of your members were to win - has any member won, in the past?

I answered this in my very first response to you on the thread, Funky:

AndarianTD wrote...

The AME has nominated and awarded individuals who have served on the panel for years, ever since Ragnarok_MR4 won Best Custom Content for his ACP animations back during our very first cycle.

It doesn't happen that frequently, but it has happened a few times.

Thanks, I missed that. That, in itself, is troubling. Of course, this could be spun either way - either the AME tends to pick its own, or they're good at picking quality authors. There's no way to tell chicken from egg, there. Which, of course, is why it's a problem of appearances.

Since I'm sure you'll want to try to use me as the "obvious counter-example,"

Counter-example to what?

So do tell us, please, what you make of all this evidence. Does it show AME's voting system failing to work? Or does it show, as I think it does, precisely the opposite: a system that allows a deserving author member to be nominated, and to win when he should, and not when he shouldn't?

As I note above, there isn't going to be a smoking gun one way or the other - we can't peek into your heads. The fact that it's happened a number of times certainly looks bad, but even that isn't 'proof' that this flaw has expressed itself.

As I wrote before, one of the problems with your so-called "theory" here is that it cuts both ways -- and that you're unwilling to face and address the fact that it does, or the implications of that fact. Let's say that Ragnarok_mr4 -- who won Best CC of 2006 for his ACP Animations, and which I think richly deserved it -- hadn't been eligible for the award. Then who would have been nominated and won instead? Someone that would have received it, unearned and on the rebound -- for no other reason than that the actually deserving author that should have received it instead was a member of the Academy.

My only 'theory', as you put it, is that there is an obvious flaw with your voting system. It doesn't 'cut both ways', as you put it. It's certainly true that making members noneligible could result in awards going to the less deserving - I certainly haven't denied that, and have actually acknowledged that as part of the problem, if you trouble yourself to read what I've written. That's why I suggested a modified public voting system as the best alternative - it's not burdened by such an issue.

You're quick to allege that the AME's voting rules "might" lead to a non-objective or non-optimal result if members are eligible for nomination, but strangely silent on the at least equally likely scenario of this happening on the reverse case.

There is no 'reverse case' - there are a number of options, each with their own problems, and none of which I've been slient about, strangely or otherwise. My first suggestion, a modified public voting system, was rejected out of hand as insufficiently exclusive. Blocking nominations of member works risks excluding the best candidate, as you point out. Adding members, which would dilute the effects of self dealing, has feasibility issues. We're not living in a binary world, where there are only two possible solutions. What a bizarre straw man.

And you completely ignore the fact that refusing to allow members to be nominated would scare away the builder volunteers that the Academy would need to function effectively in the first place.

No, I don't - as I said to pstmarie, if you don't want to allow public voting, none of the remaining solutions looks terribly appealing - in part because of the desire to retain members, which I have actually discussed at length as part of the bias issue - again, if you bother to read and understand what I've written.

Funky

[FunkySwerve]

[quote]Bannor Bloodfist wrote...

Folks, stop feeding the troll please.

He has proven that he doesn't really care what anyone else's answer may be.

He has proven that he can't answer direct challenges to his supposed conflict of interest charges, simply because there are none.
[/quote]
What an inane pile of babble. I'll address your points briefly, but it's clear that you have no interest in trying to understand what I'm saying - kindly stop attacking me, and let me discuss the issue with the more rational AME members.
[quote]
He has been asked to join the system, and directly refused to do so.[/quote]
Completely true. It wouldn't fix anything, as I already noted, not without a whole lot of other people joining as well. I also don't really regard myself as possessing expertise of the kind you're looking for - my expertise runs more to identifying specious logic and absurd accusations, like the ones in your post.
[quote]
He has been asked to prove that the system is broken, he can't.[/quote]
Actually, I have. What I haven't proven is that the broken system has already produced broken results - such a proof is impossible without omniscience, so decrying my not having done so is patently absurd.
[quote]
His opinions on human nature mean absolutely nothing as they are just his opinions.[/quote]
Actually, they're not just my opinions. They're the underpnnings of the global market economy. Ignore them at your peril.
[quote]
His quasi claims to knowing law and economics have no bearing on the AME whatsoever.[/quote]
Oooh, 'quasi'. That sure sounds BAD. I wonder if even you know what you meant to say there. I'm a licensed attorney, no quasi about it, and I studied and tutored econ in undergrad, as well as studying the field of economics and law in law school. If you want to tell me that the study of rules has no bearing on the AME's system of rules for nominations, well, then there's no helping you. 
[quote]
He has been asked to simply ignore a system he thinks is flawed, but he can't seem to do that.[/quote]
Begging your pardon? Where was I asked to ignore it? The last 'request' I saw of any kind was a request for feedback, which I've given despite your extreme belligerence.
[quote]
He has made promises directly in this thread to no longer post about it, Yet he has, multiple times.
[/quote]
Begging your pardon, but I didn't 'promise' anything. I said I wouldn't post about it after yesterday, but have been forced to post in order to clarify points I've already made - in part, by you. Objecting to my responding to you is more than a little silly.
[quote]
If that is not troll behavior by a conspiracy theorist (which he hates being called on the carpet for, likely due to his guilt by association), I have no idea what else you would call it.
[/quote]
I have no idea what you're trying to say, there, but it was me that was teasing you about conspiracy theorizing, if you look back. It had to do with you muttering suspiciously about why I picked now to post these concerns - after having been asked for feedback.

[quote]
He raised an issue, which has been answered by how that issue is handled within the AME by precluding any member from even being counted in any votes on that particular category.. NO system is perfect. Adding public votes won't change anything. Besides which, the two public voting systems available are already there so no reason to add a 3rd.[/quote]
The problem is, that you haven't addressed it. Rather, you've tried to pretend it away, misconstrue it, and make every possible sort of inane excuse or denial of and for it.
[quote]
No one expects everyone to agree on everything. No one forces ANYONE to take a Golden Dragon award. In fact, folks are allowed to remove their works from consideration if they so choose. No one forces anyone to even read the announcements etc. If anyone hates the IDEA of the AME and the GDA award soo much, just walk away from it. Stop attempting to knock it down on some personal belief that you personally can not be honest enough to give a valid vote on something, especially when you decide to create a new award, and give it to yourself, just to prove how dishonest you can be?
[/quote]
I love that you're trying to make this about me being dishonest. My concerns with your voting system are based on extremely basic precepts of economic theory, which aren't even trivially disputed within or without the field. They have nothing to do with honesty, and everything to do with self-interest.
[quote]
It truly is sad that someone has to take personal likes/dislikes to such extremes.
[/quote]
Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you have some sort of personal beef with me? It'd certainly explain the character of your replies.
[quote]
Geeze, if that is not trolling behavior, I certainly do not understand what trolling really is.
[/quote]
You're absolutely correct! You clearly don't. 
[quote]
Funky has some good ideas, especially for helping protect PW servers etc. But his "opinions" on human nature have no bearing here at all.[/quote]
I covered this above - you really shouldn't scarequote one of your own labels, by the way - it indicates skepticism about the term. Doh.
[quote]
Especially when he can find no proof of said negative behavior in regards to the AME at all. The reason he can't is simply because the AME folks have taken their toils to heart, and are honest, hardworking folks whom only wish to HELP the community to find truly good/great releases that might otherwise not have gained the attention they deserve.[/quote]
Actually, no, the reason I can't is, as noted above, I'm not omniscient. Unless one of you was dumb enough to write something like 'I R voting for this cuz author is my best buddy' in a public place, such proof is simply unavailable. That doesn't mean there's no problem, however, as I've already pointed out several times. Again, the kind of bias that I'm concerned with needn't even be of the conscious variety.
[quote]
Does the "opinion" of the AME matter to anyone? Many folks find it helps them to find the jewels hidden among the dross on the vault. Saves them time trying out everything that gets released etc. So that they can spend whatever free time they devote to NWN by playing with something truly worth the time. If you DON"T like how the AME does it's job, simply ignore the award(s) and go your own way. The AME won't mind, neither will the rest of us. But knocking the AME on the mistaken belief that they are flawed, is ludicrous. No proof can be offered that they have mistakenly voted something in that didn't deserve the vote. Could it happen? Possibly, but not with the current membership and how they do things, but even if it did happen, sometime far in the future, by some new membership that didn't care to be honest and trustworthy, it still would not break anyone's enjoyment of the game of NWN. It wouldn't end the world, it wouldn't even cost you anything out of your bank account. So, what's the big deal?
[/quote]
No one is knocking the AME. You asked for feedback, and I expressed a concern, and you proceeded to rabidly knock *me*, calling me a troll, and carrying on about how I have some mysterious grudge and am conspiring against you, in truly paranoid fashion. You didn't like the concern, so suddenly you don't want that feedback you were asking for. Funny that. Again, I'll ask that you please leave the discussion to the more level-headed members of the group, of which there thankfully appear to be a few.

Funky

[FunkySwerve]

Queensilverwing wrote...

Yip simple...and appears logical. Then again, I have a brother-in-law who talks in such a way as to make the listener believe he has a great command and grasp on any given subject, and he puts forth his arguments with such apparent logic, that it isn't until later that I sit there and think/realise that he just shovelled me a pile of horse manure and I swallowed it!

Not that I'm saying you're full of *hit, not at all! I just have a natural distrust of people who can discuss emotive subjects with such apparent emotionless. Then again, I'd make a baaaaad law maker, so a little distance is to be admired on occasion.

That said, I cannot deny your reasoning on the subject of member nominations. But that is where we veer apart. We have had some of the most amazing module authors and CC creators in our group, if we discount their undoubtedly high calibre of work, what are we really saying to the community?

Sorry folks, you got the next best thing on XY & Z category because the really excellent works were by an author who is an AME member?

It IS a damnable problem, I admit it. However, we have I think managed to avoid the pitfalls you are worried about for the last 5 years...I honestly believe that. I don't know what the future holds, but I do know that should I ever have reason to question something like that in an award year, I like all the other members would pull up sticks and leave the awards. I don't want a friend to win, I want the best to win, even if that means I have to vote against a friends work or nomination.

When I think about it, it really is that simple. And gods you know how I like simple! *chuckles*

Thank you for your reasoned reply. I'll save the teasing about how I'm suspiciously logical and dispassionate for another time. I wish I had a better solution to offer, but without public voting, I just can't think of anything that would improve things without making them worse elsewhere. Perhaps the AME could certify voters somehow? Even that seems like a potential bureaucratic mess for marginal gains...

Funky

Modifié par FunkySwerve, 28 août 2011 - 12:54 .

[Shia Luck]

HI all

Just like to say I don'tlike the way this thread has gone. The complete quality of the people responding in this thread has been shown over many years and many forum posts and you are all wonderful members of the community, and it seems sad to me that you stand and fight for... well, seemingly... actually let's leave how it all seems out of this.

IMHO, Funky has a non practical, but completely possible point about non concious influence.

The AME members have a lot of practical points about how the system does a lot more good than harm.

Stop fighting, no?

So far as I can see you all do your very best for the NWN community, in very different areas which don't overlap.

Why not just leave it as that? 

...

(TBH, I just find it ironic that economics is being used to justify the "Ethical" viewpoint, while ethics is being used to justify the "practical viewpoint *grin* )

Have fun , and please stop arguing

[olivier leroux]

I acknowledge the point about potential risks of unconscious influence. It's certainly something to take into consideration, especially with the AME's unfortunately small number of members at the moment. And it's not as if we haven't extensively discussed this matter internally, with different opinions. But these risks are always present, it doesn't stop with excluding AME members from being nominated. The NWN community is comparatively small and a lot of players, builders and CC creators are 'friends' and treat each other favorably. If you'd exclude AME members from being nominated, you'd still have no guarantee that AME members won't vote for their 'friends' who are not AME members. And if you'd make the voting public and let everyone participate, you'd have no guarantee either that the winner wasn't chosen because he or she is the most popular, the one with the most friends among voters.

The AME tries its best to minimize such influence, on the one hand by appealing to the member's honor and responsibilty, on the other hand by strict regulations regarding conflicts of interest. It's a system based on both rules and trust. Is it perfect and 100% fool-proof? Of course not - show me a system that is. But I wouldn't call it flawed, a lot of thought has gone into it over the years, and it seems good enough, if not the best possible solution considering the AME's purpose.

And the purpose of the AME, in my eyes, is neither to be the measure of all things by dictating what is 'objectively' the best (such a notion would be quite ridiculous, IMO), nor to determine who and what is the most popular, but to give qualified recommendations by experienced and passionate people who have had a closer look at the available content of a given year (or in a specific category), and to thank the according authors for their contribution by awarding them. "The Best Role-Playing Module", for example, means nothing more than "The Best Role-Playing Module according to the majority vote of AME members", who naturally, even when picking out quality content, all have their own preferences, and all this should be obvious.

As others have said, community members can take these recommendations or ignore them, everyone's allowed their own opinion on the winners and the credibility of the awards. There's no prize money, the winners won't make it on no magazine cover, all they ever gain is a little additional recognition and a GDA banner for their Vault page, so provided the system is theoretically open for abuse and someone actually manages to bypass all control mechanisms, would that really be such a big deal in the end? Anyone is welcome to join the AME, share their own playing and modding experiences and help to ensure that there's a wide variety among the tastes and preferences of AME members. And if someone wanted to form their own jury and awards instead, based on their own voting system and credibility, that would be perfectly fine, too. NWN can only win.

I understand the questions you raised, Funky, and I appreciate the feedback, but I'm not sure where your reasoning is meant to lead us eventually, and if it's really constructive criticism. So far you haven't gone into detail how you'd imagine a system of public voting for the AME and what would distinguish it from the MotY contest or casting votes on Vault pages. Can you actually come up with a public system that is beneficial to the community and better at avoiding all risks of favoritism than the AME's current one? And in keeping with the AME's purpose as I described it above? Or are you just aiming at the abolition of the AME by replacing it with another - and therefor quite redundant - popularity poll system (which would add up to nothing but one community service less, whether you liked it or not)?

Modifié par olivier leroux, 28 août 2011 - 04:16 .

[FunkySwerve]

Hey, oliver, thanks also for a thoughtful reply.

olivier leroux wrote...
The AME tries its best to minimize such influence, on the one hand by appealing to the member's honor and responsibilty, on the other hand by strict regulations regarding conflicts of interest. It's a system based on both rules and trust. Is it perfect and 100% fool-proof? Of course not - show me a system that is. But I wouldn't call it flawed, a lot of thought has gone into it over the years, and it seems good enough, if not the best possible solution considering the AME's purpose.

My point isn't that the AME system isn't perfect, but that it could be better. Most systems of rules can, though it isn't always worth the trouble.

And the purpose of the AME, in my eyes, is neither to be the measure of all things by dictating what is 'objectively' the best (such a notion would be quite ridiculous, IMO), nor to determine who and what is the most popular, but to give qualified recommendations by experienced and passionate people who have had a closer look at the available content of a given year (or in a specific category), and to thank the according authors for their contribution by awarding them. "The Best Role-Playing Module", for example, means nothing more than "The Best Role-Playing Module according to the majority vote of AME members", who naturally, even when picking out quality content, all have their own preferences, and all this should be obvious.

The problem there is that, by calling something the best, you are asserting some kind of objective measure - otherwise the award would be meaningless. Indeed, the point of AME, as it's been described here, is to apply a MORE critical, experienced, and evenhanded standard than that of the Vault. I don't think you really mean to relinquish claim to some form of objectivity, though the point that perfect objectivity isn't possible is well taken.

And if someone wanted to form their own jury and awards instead, based on their own voting system and credibility, that would be perfectly fine, too. NWN can only win.

I disagree with that, but that would require a more complicated economic analysis than those already set down in this thread. Suffice it to say, I'm not looking to replace the AME, just at ways to improve it.

I understand the questions you raised, Funky, and I appreciate the feedback, but I'm not sure where your reasoning is meant to lead us eventually, and if it's really constructive criticism. So far you haven't gone into detail how you'd imagine a system of public voting for the AME and what would distinguish it from the MotY contest or casting votes on Vault pages.

Actually, I did mention some details early on, but the notion of public voting was rejected pretty quickly as being counter to the purpose of the AME. If you're open to the notion, I'm happy to elaborate. I think it's the best option, if disallowing submissions by AME members is a nonstarter, but your other remarks below make me think you're not so open to it.

Can you actually come up with a public system that is beneficial to the community and better at avoiding all risks of favoritism than the AME's current one? And in keeping with the AME's purpose as I described it above?

This question is...somewhat fraught with complexity - the answer is that it depends on how you define the AME's purpose. With regard to favoritism, yes, absolutely. If, however, a core part of the AME's purpose is to solicit only a certain class of opinion, rather than what some above described as a 'popularity contest', then it's less clear. If you can crystallize that purpose a bit, I could answer. I've seen a few different explanations of what the AME dislikes about the Vault system, not necessarily mutually exclusive ones. For example:
-Do you want to exclude anyone without a certain type of experience? What type or types of experience do you want to require?
-Do you want to exclude only 'fanboy' votes, as someone else above termed them, meaning votes, presumably, which don't really have bearing on the material being voted on, but rather that of previous work?
-Do you want to require simple playthrough of the material, or more involved examination?
-Are you simply trying to guard against fast, arbitrary assessments like 'I can't load it it R teh suxxormax', or something more?

There are myriad ways to craft rules to serve most of those goals, depending on the specifics. First, though, let's get specific. As I mentioned above, vote certification of some kind is a potential compromise solution, but it's feasibility and benefit are dependant on the current situation. How many members of AME are there at present? I tally 45 votes in the custom content poll for september, by way of comparison.

Funky

Modifié par FunkySwerve, 28 août 2011 - 06:19 .

[Quillmaster]

FunkySwerve wrote...

In any event, my point has been made. Do with it what you will. In the interest of community harmony, I won't post on it again after today.

Funky

Your day is up.  Please let others make of it what they will, and allow us to move on with what we enjoy... sampling the best of what the community has to offer.

[Zarathustra217]

FunkySwerve wrote...

Zarathustra217 wrote...

While economics is great for describing the flow of commodities, labour and holdings, it isn't always the best solution for assessing the subjective, the aesthetics and the arts. While I can relate to many of your concerns Funky, I don't feel it's accurate to compare it to a free market situation.

Actually, economics (this is application of economic reasoning, NOT a comparison to a 'free market situation' - econ != free market)  does assess those things, by its very nature. While it's difficult, as you note, to answer a question like, 'what is the market value of a beautiful view?' directly, the market still has an answer. This is why houses in the foothills, or along beaches, for example, tend to be much pricier than their less-scenically situated counterparts.

That I mention a free market situation is merely because you use that as example for part of your reasoning yourself.

FunkySwerve wrote...
Likewise, subjective preference is encompassed in 'rational self-interest', though as you note it's often complicated, and has been the source of much scholarly dissent. One of the easier cases, for example, is that of the addict - should his getting a fix constitute his having satisfied his rational self-interest? Only a few hedonists think that it should, but you can see all sorts of less black-and-white avenues leading that direction.

Economics, by its nature, is a formulaic way of talking about all human concerns - sort of akin to psychohistory, if you're a fan of Asmiov - just much less advanced.

And that is exactly why it isn't very good at describing things such as art and beauty, because these terms in their essence caries a strong element of non-structualism. Of course, that's a rather fundamental metaphysical debate, but what concerns me is mainly that you present is as 'given'. It's quite far from what is the common conception carried by current acedemic philosophical society.

What a side-point though! Back to the matter at hand.

I'll be frank, I personally do not like the idea of any AME
member being nominated for their work. Not however because they are not
deserving, but because it raises eyebrows in some areas of the
community.

I find this concern very important too, but not just because the AME should avoid to upset some tiny yet vocal minority. Rather, I find that for the AME to truly be respected, it has to establish a large amount of trust. You cannot simply sit down and start acting as official judge of what is good and bad without it being prone to seem intimidating - even provacative - and particularly when establishing a reward for something this subjective makes you particularly prone to questions of impartiality and bias toward friends.

Whether the AME has by now earned the respect and trust to not worry about such accusations, I am not in the position to say - but it's obvious that it's a concern to take seriously.

On the other hand is it fair, truly fair and honest of me, to
deny an author or CC'er the right to have the chance at being awarded a
GDA ?

The answer is no, it is not fair or right of me to
penalize a person for wanting to give back to the community in their
capacity as an AME member, at the cost of denying them the chance (if it
comes up) at such an award. I'm wrong for ever thinking it, or that it
could or indeed should work. That would have been the perfect system
perhaps, but it would have been a sterile and ultimately immoral one.

I don't think it's a matter of any fundamental 'right' to be awarded a GDA. It's entirely something you've constructed yourself, after all. It's up to you to assess whether the necessity of having everyone eligible candidates (even AME members) outweights the concerns involved, and if you could do more to earn credibility in that regard. Perhaps it's a matter of excluding those potentially nominated from participating in discussing their own category? Perhaps do more to clarify the measurements you take to prevent bias? Perhaps make a jury for each category that is elected by the respective part of the community?

Let me make it clear though, I appreciate every initiative to bring the community to life and continue to run, and I honestly do not feel I'm enough active in this part of the community to really say if there's a critical issue here. But the discussion was opened, and it was opened because of lack of response and reaction to the initial posts. To me, if I was the AME, that would be a worrying sign. If it's related to a crisis of credibility I don't know, but it seems that something has to be done to reach more out to the community.

Modifié par Zarathustra217, 28 août 2011 - 11:38 .

[WebShaman]

sampling the best of what the community has to offer.

SOME of the best - and that is a given, I think. But there is a whole lot more out there, that I haven't seen "offered"...

Of course, due to my personal tastes and dislikes, I am biased My rational self-interest is seeping through here...

I will say that I am somewhat appalled at some of the responses to someone's asked for feedback. Especially a feedback that is most informative, and quite rational.

Whatever.

Well, Funky, you were always a unique individual, and you will continue to be one, especially here. Keep holding the flame, man.

This community would be poorer without you.

No more to see from me here. I think the issue will not be addressed, and will continue as it has. Well, the point was raised, and feedback gathered. It would seem that a line in the sand was drawn, and minds are set.

Reminds me of an issue that we had not all that long ago.

[olivier leroux]

FunkySwerve wrote...
This question is...somewhat fraught with complexity - the answer is that it depends on how you define the AME's purpose. With regard to favoritism, yes, absolutely. If, however, a core part of the AME's purpose is to solicit only a certain class of opinion, rather than what some above described as a 'popularity contest', then it's less clear. If you can crystallize that purpose a bit, I could answer. I've seen a few different explanations of what the AME dislikes about the Vault system, not necessarily mutually exclusive ones. For example:
-Do you want to exclude anyone without a certain type of experience? What type or types of experience do you want to require?
-Do you want to exclude only 'fanboy' votes, as someone else above termed them, meaning votes, presumably, which don't really have bearing on the material being voted on, but rather that of previous work?
-Do you want to require simple playthrough of the material, or more involved examination?
-Are you simply trying to guard against fast, arbitrary assessments like 'I can't load it it R teh suxxormax', or something more?

There are myriad ways to craft rules to serve most of those goals, depending on the specifics. First, though, let's get specific. As I mentioned above, vote certification of some kind is a potential compromise solution, but it's feasibility and benefit are dependant on the current situation. How many members of AME are there at present? I tally 45 votes in the custom content poll for september, by way of comparison.

I think I did already define the AME's purpose above and it's different than the Vault ratings' purpose for a reason. The thing is, it's not about the "AME disliking the Vault system" (I for one don't dislike it), it's just that I see no reason to mimic it when it's already present as an option. So what would your system set apart from it?

Personally I don't see the GDAs as some kind of elitist awards that are better than the rest but as an interesting alternative that complements the already existing public options of voting. A simple playthrough is enough for a player to participate in the voting process for a module category, but for us it is important that the players make themselves familiar with all the finalists before casting their vote for the winner, so that candidates who didn't get a lot of attention yet get a chance to win, too - that's the type of experience that is definitely required. Of course that is a matter of trust and everyone's own responsibility, but the AME members are not anonymous, you can check out who they are by reading the Bio thread on our forums, and they are also chosen on the ground of appearing reliable and responsible. So yes, it is all subjective and all opinions but you know where it's coming from, and AME members stand for it with their name, plus they are to a certain extent able to control and question each other's reasoning.

When you have a completely anonymous system like the Custom Content poll, you won't know who participated in the voting (I don't mean who voted for what but who actually participated) and for what reasons. You wouldn't even notice when someone with more than one account votes several times for their own choice or when someone mobilizes all their friends to vote for the same. And you had even less means to ascertain that the voters are really familiar with all the candidates. I don't see how that would help to increase the awards' credibility. It would just turn them into something completely different.

(Besides, I doubt it makes much sense to take the participation in the "Custom Content Challenge" poll as a measure for potential AME participation. You don't have to be familiar with anything to cast a vote in that poll, it's a wishlist not a rating poll, entirely based on personal preferences and doesn't require any research or responsibility.)

But by all means, if I'm wrong and you actually do have a good idea to address all these issues to everyone's satisfaction, helping the AME to improve, I'd be curious to hear it. And I mean it. It would certainly be more constructive and more interesting to read than metadiscussions, mutual reproaches and abstract thoughts about economy, no matter from what side.

Modifié par olivier leroux, 28 août 2011 - 01:07 .

[olivier leroux]

Zarathustra217 wrote...
Perhaps it's a matter of excluding those potentially nominated from participating in discussing their own category?

I think that's a good thought, to complement the rules already in place. Not that it would change the outward appearance but it's still something to consider for ourselves.

Modifié par olivier leroux, 28 août 2011 - 12:47 .